Trump admin begins denying visas to unmarried gay partners of diplomats

[Cozarkian]

To me the easier and more correct answer is to simply allow diplomats to have a visa for a partner, regardless of what sex.

That would make perfect sense, but it would require the administration to abandon one of its puritanical religious values as applied to diplomats.

 

[fskimospy]

Because it is a bad example that uses an appeal to emotion to try to circumvent logic. The question is whether the no sleeping under bridges rule is a bad policy, not whether it discriminates. If we decide it is a good policy, then the law is in the proper form. A rule that says only poor people can't sleep under bridges might be just as effective from a policy standpoint, but it would discriminate.

It's a very good example if you think about it and it's absolutely a discrimination question. I'm actually trying to get people to use logic as opposed to react emotionally. Laws that appear facially neutral on paper are often anything but in practice.

While a law preventing people from sleeping under bridges is neutral on its face, the reality is that it affects the poor basically exclusively. We should not pretend that effect does not exist when examining if a law is discriminatory or not. (this is in holding with longstanding SCOTUS precedent as well)

Once you start looking at people's desires as the basis for determining discrimination, everything becomes discrimination. Speeding discriminates against those who like to drive fast, exotic pet bans discriminate against those not satisfied with traditional pets. These are all policy questions - do we want to ban a behavior that certain people would enjoy - not a discrimination question.

People do not sleep under bridges because they enjoy it.

 

[hal2kilo]

It's a very good example if you think about it and it's absolutely a discrimination question. I'm actually trying to get people to use logic as opposed to react emotionally. Laws that appear facially neutral on paper are often anything but in practice.

While a law preventing people from sleeping under bridges is neutral on its face, the reality is that it affects the poor basically exclusively. We should not pretend that effect does not exist when examining if a law is discriminatory or not. (this is in holding with longstanding SCOTUS precedent as well)



People do not sleep under bridges because they enjoy it.

So you had to explain it I see.

 

[interchange]

There is perhaps some avenue for legally challenging this policy, but it seems the reason people are opposed to it are on moral grounds, which I think ought to be the test that people rationalizing the policy as fair are avoiding. Certainly, no one is being granted visas who has not had a background check and doesn't have a significant relationship with the person coming to the US to represent their country. And the visa is limited to the time the diplomat is here. It is not a path to permanent residence and thus really doesn't make sense that it has potential for abuse.

Beyond that, I haven't seen anyone make any argument why there was anything bad about the way things were done before -- abuse, security risk, etc.

Thus, the only reason I can conclude in order to justify this policy change is in order to give a big middle finger to gay people and the UN. Sad to say, but the current administration has plenty of reason and history to suggest that very motivation is correct. Even if somehow someone finds rationale that the new policy is better, they ought to at least speak out against the petty and stigmatizing motivation for it, and probably decide against it altogether because the harm it does outweighs the benefits (if there are any).

 

[Cozarkian]

It's a very good example if you think about it and it's absolutely a discrimination question.

It absolutely is not an example of discrimination within the context of how equal protection should be applied. Going by a broader definition of discrimination, the problem is actually that the law fails to discriminate between the needs of the rich and the poor. The real value to that question is that it forces people to realize that whether a law discriminates in the traditional sense is not the only measure by which we should judge laws.

The bridge law is an instance of rich people in power placing their own trivial desires (the desire to avoid the unsightliness of having a homeless person sleeping under a bridge) over the needs of a homeless person to find shelter from weather. Constitutional challenges to that law should be based on due process and the right to life and liberty, not on equal protection.

Imagine a future society has solved the problem of homelessness via a basic income, free public housing or some other method. A law that prohibits sleeping under bridges in such a society would not have nearly the same issues as such a law would today. It is silly to consider a law discriminatory today but not discriminatory tomorrow because of such indirect factors, while it makes sense while such indirect factors would impact the policy considerations and burden the law imposes on the right to life and liberty.

We can also take a look at the law from the other angle. Imagine in the above society (with no homelessness), it becomes popular among a wealthy subset of that society for their children to have a right of passage by spending a week on the streets as if they were broke and homeless. Those kids tend to congregate under bridges.

If the city passes (or had) a no-sleeping under the bridge law is it now (or did it become) discriminatory? No. Rather, a new policy consideration arises - whether the desire of society to not have people sleeping under bridges is sufficiently valuable to impede on the cultural practices of a group of rich people. And in this circumstance, the answer isn't nearly as clear cut.

 

[hal2kilo]

More dick moves. That's all. Makes his base feel warn inside.

 

[Cozarkian]

Thus, the only reason I can conclude in order to justify this policy change is in order to give a big middle finger to gay people and the UN. Sad to say, but the current administration has plenty of reason and history to suggest that very motivation is correct. Even if somehow someone finds rationale that the new policy is better, they ought to at least speak out against the petty and stigmatizing motivation for it, and probably decide against it altogether because the harm it does outweighs the benefits (if there are any).

That is almost certainly the case. Yes, the policy discriminates against non-married heterosexual couples, but not all discrimination is necessarily unconstitutional.

For example, I would have no problem with a law that discriminates against men by having Medicare pay for annual mammograms for women but not for men. The risk of breast cancer is so different for those two groups that such discrimination is a good way to allocate limited resources.

This is likely another such situation. We should probably limit the exception to diplomats from countries that don't allow gay marriage, but I'm not horrified by an exception for diplomats from countries that don't.

 

[Ventanni]

You still haven't made any point that hasn't ready been made and countered. The only difference is you've already acknowledged that you don't give a shit about what the rules are in other countries.

Well, I don't, really. Neither you nor I have the power to change laws in other countries, so I'm not going to waste a lot of energy in getting all upset that foreign countries don't recognize gay marriage. I'm also not an idiot and recognize the importance of honor. You can't influence what you don't first honor.

But having been in leadership for an extensive period of time, I also believe in the rule of law and/or the consistent enforcement of policy. Perhaps this is the best thing to happen since it outlines the absurdity of the ruling, but I know that inconsistent and unenforced policies within any organization will erode confidence and morale within said organization. What I'm saying is, it's better to enforce the same set of rules to both hetero and homosexual couples even if they are absurd then to have different rules for each. Why? Because people are people, and people value consistency above all else, especially when it comes to the application of policy.

If you don't like it, then change the policy to something equally favorable to both homosexual and heterosexual couples. Problem solved.

 

[fskimospy]

It absolutely is not an example of discrimination within the context of how equal protection should be applied. Going by a broader definition of discrimination, the problem is actually that the law fails to discriminate between the needs of the rich and the poor. The real value to that question is that it forces people to realize that whether a law discriminates in the traditional sense is not the only measure by which we should judge laws.

The bridge law is an instance of rich people in power placing their own trivial desires (the desire to avoid the unsightliness of having a homeless person sleeping under a bridge) over the needs of a homeless person to find shelter from weather. Constitutional challenges to that law should be based on due process and the right to life and liberty, not on equal protection.

Imagine a future society has solved the problem of homelessness via a basic income, free public housing or some other method. A law that prohibits sleeping under bridges in such a society would not have nearly the same issues as such a law would today. It is silly to consider a law discriminatory today but not discriminatory tomorrow because of such indirect factors, while it makes sense while such indirect factors would impact the policy considerations and burden the law imposes on the right to life and liberty.

We can also take a look at the law from the other angle. Imagine in the above society (with no homelessness), it becomes popular among a wealthy subset of that society for their children to have a right of passage by spending a week on the streets as if they were broke and homeless. Those kids tend to congregate under bridges.

If the city passes (or had) a no-sleeping under the bridge law is it now (or did it become) discriminatory? No. Rather, a new policy consideration arises - whether the desire of society to not have people sleeping under bridges is sufficiently valuable to impede on the cultural practices of a group of rich people. And in this circumstance, the answer isn't nearly as clear cut.

It wouldn’t be evaluated as an equal protection violation because poverty is not a protected class.

To repeat: the point of the example was not to make a statement that anti-vagrancy laws are themselves discrimination under US law but to point to the fact that facially neutral laws often have disparate impacts and in cases like denying visas to same sex partners amount to discrimination. If you don’t account for what they laws actually do in real life then you miss the point.

Governments are very aware of this by the way and often try to make laws that appear neutral but are targeted at disfavored minorities. North Carolina is a great example of that when they took time to find out where and when black people were most likely to vote and then enacted laws to limit those opportunities. Were the laws neutral on their face? Absolutely. Were they designed to discriminate? Absolutely.

 

[1prophet]

It absolutely is not an example of discrimination within the context of how equal protection should be applied. Going by a broader definition of discrimination, the problem is actually that the law fails to discriminate between the needs of the rich and the poor. The real value to that question is that it forces people to realize that whether a law discriminates in the traditional sense is not the only measure by which we should judge laws.

The bridge law is an instance of rich people in power placing their own trivial desires (the desire to avoid the unsightliness of having a homeless person sleeping under a bridge) over the needs of a homeless person to find shelter from weather. Constitutional challenges to that law should be based on due process and the right to life and liberty, not on equal protection.

Imagine a future society has solved the problem of homelessness via a basic income, free public housing or some other method. A law that prohibits sleeping under bridges in such a society would not have nearly the same issues as such a law would today. It is silly to consider a law discriminatory today but not discriminatory tomorrow because of such indirect factors, while it makes sense while such indirect factors would impact the policy considerations and burden the law imposes on the right to life and liberty.

We can also take a look at the law from the other angle. Imagine in the above society (with no homelessness), it becomes popular among a wealthy subset of that society for their children to have a right of passage by spending a week on the streets as if they were broke and homeless. Those kids tend to congregate under bridges.

If the city passes (or had) a no-sleeping under the bridge law is it now (or did it become) discriminatory? No. Rather, a new policy consideration arises - whether the desire of society to not have people sleeping under bridges is sufficiently valuable to impede on the cultural practices of a group of rich people. And in this circumstance, the answer isn't nearly as clear cut.

Along with pots of gold at the end of the rainbow that require a unicorn to fetch it, imagination is where this future society will always be, since basic income along with free public housing is a feel good farce no different than trickle down Reaganomics, someone has to pay for it, and the the rich will always try to avoid paying for it and there is no finer example than liberal progressive Seattle giving in to anti-Trump liberal Amazon over paying to help the homeless,

Our new rich tech-liberals, always on the side of whatever identity politics movement comes from the left, just don't touch their money and subsequent lifestyle,





How Amazon Helped Kill a Seattle Tax on Business
A levy on big companies to fund affordable housing awakened the ire of corporations.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...helped-kill-a-seattle-tax-on-business/562736/

Seattle is one of the most progressive cities in the country. It’s the place where the Fight for $15 movement first gained traction, where the city council last year tried to levy a tax on the city’s richest residents, and where local government passed one of the country’s first secure scheduling ordinances to give shift workers more notice of when they’d be working. And now, Seattle businesses have had enough.

Less than a month after the Seattle City Council unanimously passed a “head tax” ordinance that would have levied a $275 per employee tax on Seattle businesses making more than $20 million a year, the same council voted to repeal that head tax Tuesday, in a 7-2 vote.

Council members say they changed their minds in the face of a well-funded and vicious campaign that sought to put a referendum on the November ballot to repeal the head tax, a campaign that they say also sought to flush progressives from office in Seattle. They say big companies like Amazon have held the city hostage by refusing to engage in a discussion about new revenue streams to fund affordable housing, and that though they might have quashed this effort, they have put forward no solutions for the city’s problems. Business leaders, meanwhile, say they’re fed up with a constant stream of taxes that have done little to solve Seattle’s growing homelessness crisis. “It's a little bit the straw that broke the camel’s back,” Heather Redman, co-founder of Flying Fish Partners, a venture capital firm, and the chair of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, told me, about the head tax.

If there’s one thing that came out of the pass and repeal the head tax—a months-long process that culminated in a raucous hearing Tuesday where self-proclaimed socialists chanted down city council members as they tried to vote—it’s that business interests and elected officials in one of America’s most liberal cities are extremely divided over how to solve a growing crisis in Seattle. That’s even though many of them come from the same political party.

 

[sactoking]

Are diplomats from China, which does not recognize freedom of the press, not afforded first amendment rights while in the US?

Are diplomats from the EU, which greatly restricts firearm ownership, not afforded second amendment rights while in the US?

Are diplomats from Thailand, currently under military rule, not afforded fourth amendment rights while in the US?

Are diplomats from South Africa, which does not have a jury trial system, not afforded sixth amendment rights while in the US?

Were women from Saudi Arabia, which did not allow women to drive until recently, prohibited from acquiring a driver's license while in the US?

Are visitors from Singapore, which permits caning, not protected from cruel and unusual punishment while in the US?

 

[brycejones]

America, once again the shining example of freedom and tolerance through this policy.

Would any conservatives here be in favor of dropping the marriage requirement entirely?

 

[mikeymikec]

Well, I don't, really. Neither you nor I have the power to change laws in other countries, so I'm not going to waste a lot of energy in getting all upset that foreign countries don't recognize gay marriage. I'm also not an idiot and recognize the importance of honor. You can't influence what you don't first honor.

But having been in leadership for an extensive period of time, I also believe in the rule of law and/or the consistent enforcement of policy. Perhaps this is the best thing to happen since it outlines the absurdity of the ruling, but I know that inconsistent and unenforced policies within any organization will erode confidence and morale within said organization. What I'm saying is, it's better to enforce the same set of rules to both hetero and homosexual couples even if they are absurd then to have different rules for each. Why? Because people are people, and people value consistency above all else, especially when it comes to the application of policy.

If you don't like it, then change the policy to something equally favorable to both homosexual and heterosexual couples. Problem solved.

I agree with most of what you've said here, and I had already made one suggestion about how to make the policy equally favourable to both hetero and homosexual couples. At least one other suggestion has been made since.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The lengths some here will go to so that they can demonize everything Trump does, and they still think they're open minded and led by facts. Love it.

 

[Cozarkian]

To repeat: the point of the example was not to make a statement that anti-vagrancy laws are themselves discrimination under US law but to point to the fact that facially neutral laws often have disparate impacts

And the bridge example is a very poor example of that. It is designed to use an appeal to emotion (empathy for the poor) to trick people into seeing discrimination where none exists. Virtually all laws have a disparate impact.

and in cases like denying visas to same sex partners amount to discrimination. If you don’t account for what they laws actually do in real life then you miss the point.

I think you meant denying visas to non-married partners amounts to discrimination against same-sex partners. I disagree. The discrimination in that instance lies in the gender-based discrimination of traditional marriage laws.

On the other hand, denying visas to non-same sex partners while permitting them to same sex partners is absolutely discrimination. The question is whether policy concerns - recognizing that same-sex partners can't get married in other countries - justifies that discrimination.

Governments are very aware of this by the way and often try to make laws that appear neutral but are targeted at disfavored minorities. North Carolina is a great example of that when they took time to find out where and when black people were most likely to vote and then enacted laws to limit those opportunities. Were the laws neutral on their face? Absolutely. Were they designed to discriminate? Absolutely.

That is a substantially different case than the bridge example. It is more akin to a law designed to corral poor people into certain areas by prohibiting sleeping under bridges only in wealthy residential neighborhoods.

 

[dainthomas]

It seems to be fair as hetero not married partners are also not allowed a visa from the way I read the article. So it is equal, they are just not getting special treatment.
It is not the fault of the US that their own country does not allow same sex marriage.

See, the right move would be to change that rule than to go the other way to try and score points with your faux Christian base.

 

[fskimospy]

And the bridge example is a very poor example of that. It is designed to use an appeal to emotion (empathy for the poor) to trick people into seeing discrimination where none exists. Virtually all laws have a disparate impact.

I think you're reading way too much into this. Nothing in my example requires empathy in any way, it's point is in fact to get people to stop thinking about this emotionally and start thinking about it logically. Vagrancy laws are simply an easy and universally understood example of a law that is neutral on its face but in practice is anything but. Once people see that the impact of a law is often as important as its wording they can apply that logic to other policies such as this one. That's the beginning and end of it.

If you like we can change the example to something else like anti-abortion laws that require all clinics in the state to qualify as surgical centers or whatever in the name of patient safety or something like that. Neutral on its face, actual effect is to go after abortion providers. If that doesn't work for you either just let me know what sorts of topics you feel aren't emotional and I'm sure there are some similar examples.

I think you meant denying visas to non-married partners amounts to discrimination against same-sex partners. I disagree. The discrimination in that instance lies in the gender-based discrimination of traditional marriage laws.

On the other hand, denying visas to non-same sex partners while permitting them to same sex partners is absolutely discrimination. The question is whether policy concerns - recognizing that same-sex partners can't get married in other countries - justifies that discrimination.

Discrimination is often a good thing, which was actually entirely my point. I would hope people understand that when discrimination is talked about generally that people are referring to harmful and unjustifiable discrimination. Nobody gets mad when we discriminate against murderers by locking them up, after all.

In this case the policy they are returning to is facially neutral but has the de facto result of creating harmful and unjustifiable discrimination against gay people. Similarly, laws that ban vagrancy are facially neutral but in the end are targeted at the poor.

That is a substantially different case than the bridge example. It is more akin to a law designed to corral poor people into certain areas by prohibiting sleeping under bridges only in wealthy residential neighborhoods.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to my point which was that facially neutral laws are in many cases anything but. I think you're focusing on the wrong part of the examples.

 

[Cozarkian]

Along with pots of gold at the end of the rainbow that require a unicorn to fetch it, imagination is where this future society will always be, since basic income along with free public housing is a feel good farce no different than trickle down Reaganomics, someone has to pay for it, and the the rich will always try to avoid paying for it and there is no finer example than liberal progressive Seattle giving in to anti-Trump liberal Amazon over paying to help the homeless,

Okay, but just because a hypothetical circumstance is unlikely to ever exist doesn't mean that hypothetical isn't a useful analytical tool.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Do they have exemptions for person that cannot legally get married? Since the diplomats wouldn't be legal US citizens (or am I wrong?), they wouldn't be able to get married here to fix that aspect, so most of them don't have the ability to get legally married in their own country in order to meet that requirement.

You don't need to be a citizen of the US to get married here. My wife is not a US citizen and we were married here.

Previously, I was married to a French woman. I wasn't a citizen of France but we were married over there.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

More dick moves. That's all. Makes his base feel warn inside.

There it is. The simplest explanation is often the best.

 

[sportage]

Let me understand Trump....
SS couples addressed have till the end of the year to tie the knot?
Seems like Trump is suddenly pro-SS marriage.
He wants these couples to marry.
Obviously, Donald has NO IDEA of what he is doing, or thinks he is doing.
Nothing new....

 

[pcgeek11]

Saying "it's just not true" is not a substantial counter-argument, it's about as insightful as children in the playground saying "Nuh-uh!". Try harder.

I have to say though, attempting to argue "equality" by removing rights is definitely a special kind of argument; the kind that would have gone down like a lead balloon when the US and other countries in recent years discussed marriage equality: "Let's just get rid of marriage!".

What "right" was removed? Getting a Visa is not a right.

You are welcome to your opinion, but a law that applies to everyone is not discrimination. It would be different if they disallowed unmarried gays and allowed unmarried heteros. That would be discrimination.

 

[pcgeek11]

I guess this thread has already reached the phase of "I didn't bother to read the thread before I make a point that's already been made and countered".

Not really.

 

[pcgeek11]

Because in many of those countries heterosexual couples have the option to be married and gay couples do not.

That means if you’re straight and from one of those countries you have the option of getting married to get your partner a visa. If you’re gay you're shit out of luck.

Now do you see why this is discriminatory?

It seems that the problem is with their parent countries and has nothing to do with the US.

 

[mikeymikec]

What "right" was removed? Getting a Visa is not a right.

You are welcome to your opinion, but a law that applies to everyone is not discrimination. It would be different if they disallowed unmarried gays and allowed unmarried heteros. That would be discrimination.

Jesus, it's the "not a right" technicality. Insert whichever word you prefer to use, then read the thread because your point has already been countered, then argue honestly rather than looking for the quickest way to say "nuh-uh!".

Not really.

Another substantial response. Try reading the thread.

It seems that the problem is with their parent countries and has nothing to do with the US.

Continue reading...